Parbouj has been making the complaint that Lewis, and those like myself who make use of his philosophical ideas, conflate atheism with materialism.
The interesting thing about that is that when Lewis himself became persuaded by anti-materialist arguments, he didn't become a theist, he attempted to avoid traditional theism by adopting an alternative philosophy that was very prevalent in his own time, namely, Absolute Idealism.
Here's what he wrote about it:
It is astonishing (at this time of day) that I could regard this position as something quite distinct from Theism. I suspect there was some willful blindness. But there were in those days all sorts of blankets, insulators, and insurances which enabled one to get all the conveniences of Theism, without believing in God. The English Hegelians, writers like T. H. Green, Bradley, and Bosanquet (then mighty names), dealt in precisely such wares. The Absolute Mind—better still, the Absolute—was impersonal, or it knew itself (but not us?) and it was so absolute that it wasn’t really much more like a mind than anyone else….We could talk religiously about the Absolute; but there was no danger of Its doing anything about us…There was nothing to fear, better still, nothing to obey.
Lewis never supposes that anti-materialist arguments (such as the argument from reason) establish theism immediately and directly. Nor do I. I do think the my argument does establish that what is basic to reality is something mental, and that it is cannot be fully described in non-mental terms. I also think that that mental something at the base of things, is most coherently drawn out in terms of a theistic philosophy.
I have always been very explicit about this, see, for example, here.
31 comments:
It's a wonder to me that some atheists will tell me that you could, for example, be a Buddhist and an atheist.
Me: So then, are you a Buddhist?
John: No.
Me: So then arguments that do not apply to Buddhist atheists may stil apply to you, no?
John: I never said I'm a materialist.
Me: Let's see: you believe that all the physical activity in this world is closed off from any "non-physical" causes, right?
John: I prefer to say I lack a belief that there is such a non-physical causes, but not that there is no such thing.
These conversations get tedious fast. John is not a materialist atheist. He's a ViewFromNowhere atheist.
Lewis never supposes that anti-materialist arguments (such as the argument from reason) establish theism immediately and directly.
Indeed. Which is why it surprises me that internet atheists spend so much of their time trashing Christianity, as if that somehow justified the "scientific materialism" of the internet atheist. The alleged falsity of Christianity might call for a better conception of God (or a conception of a better God) or the embracing of Eastern esotericism, or the embracing of Platonism, or the assumption that we live in The Matrix, but what it doesn't do is establish materialism.
And yet the internet atheists keep giving the distinct impression that they think it does, as if giving up on materialism would force them to become the one thing they hate most: a Christian, when in fact all sorts of fascinating options lay open.
I never thought about materialism or naturalism until forced into the discussion by Christians who wondered why I didn't find their particular beliefs credible. I think that most atheists would agree with me that we have a concept of reality that does and may contain many things, but certainly (as much as we can be certain about such things) doesn't contain the God described by the world's past and present religions.
I find all this talk about what an atheist's worldview must contain and exclude to be tedious and wrong-headed. So many interesting things exist; it just turns out that the Christian God (among others) is not one of them. Get over that, and the world remains at least as fascinating as it was before. There's no reason to assign much, if any other, limits after that.
Tony
The existence or non-existence of God (or gods) is not analogous to the existence or non-existence of, say, a table in my backyard. It has real and serious consequences for metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, and every other area of philosophy, consequences that would/should dramatically influence your day to day actions (if you wish to be consistent in your thought and actions, which I think would be desirable for anyone). To simply refuse to work out these consequences and, what's more, to suggest that working them out is somehow unnecessary, is to abdicate philosophy itself. It is to lead the unexamined life, which I've been told on good authority, is not worth living
Victor
"I do think the my argument does establish that what is basic to reality is something mental, and that it is cannot be fully described in non-mental terms."
Yes, a reasonable statement; one with which I can concur.
"I also think that that mental something at the base of things, is most coherently drawn out in terms of a theistic philosophy."
This is where reality dips into the dreamy world of personal proclivity. It is simply a statement of faith that seeks to slide under the bar of validation, an 'endorsement by attachment', if you will, to the bona fides of the previous statement. Now that is a leap of faith.
Dan
"The existence or non-existence of God (or gods) is not analogous to the existence or non-existence of, say, a table in my backyard."
Why not?
Equally, what is the difference between the existence of god[s] and faeries at the bottom of the garden? Both are mental pictures, mentation in action where the brain uses the closest analogy of a sentient being known to humans from its library of experiences of the physical world, and funnily enough both gods and faeries have all the appearance and attributes of humans, albeit at different scales.
In matters of philosophy, the interposition of gods in the descriptive gap about that which philosophers are deeming to discuss (where do we come from?; why am I here?; who am I?; why is the universe the way it is?; Who [sic] made the universe?) doesn't make for substantiating or validating the existence of such ethereal entities. Had a meme-plex of animism caught our imagination rather than christianity, we would be philosophizing on the spiritual nature of rocks and waterholes, and the great 'dreamtime water snake' that is the progenitor of the universe [A number of Australian Aboriginal cultures have no doubt about how the world was created.]
So your statement, "It has real and serious consequences for metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, and every other area of philosophy, consequences that would/should dramatically influence your day to day actions (if you wish to be consistent in your thought and actions, which I think would be desirable for anyone)", is apologetical bunkum.
But, if there was an element of truth in the statement, it would be the 'metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, and every other area of' christianity for which there is real and serious consequence.
No Dan, philosophy would trundle on pretty much as it does now, without the god meme.
Papalinton
You seem to think that I'm arguing that philosophy would not exist, were it not for the existence of God. I'm not. Instead, I'm making the entirely obvious point that Christian philosophy and atheistic philosophy (and for that matter Buddhist philosophy and Hindu philosophy) are different, often in very fundamental ways.
For instance, an atheist must account for why there is something rather than nothing in a very different way than a theist. Thus, their metaphysics are profoundly different (and indeed they may deny metaphysics altogether, as incoherent as that is). Likewise, an atheist (or, again, a Buddhist or Hindu or Taoist or what have you) can't simply adopt a Catholic or Protestant ethical system but omit God, as God is the very thing that system is predicated on. Nietzsche famously heaped scorn on atheists who attempted to do exactly that. So, the existence or non-existence of God does have very real consequences for philosophy. To simply state "I'm an atheist, that's it" with no further considerations of the effects such a claim has on your worldview as a whole is lazy and intellectually irresponsible. Just as saying "I believe in God" and ignoring the consequences of such a belief is lazy and irresponsible. This is true regardless of whether you take theism or atheism to be correct.
Dan: "I'm not. Instead, I'm making the entirely obvious point that Christian philosophy and atheistic philosophy ... are different, often in very fundamental ways."
I think they differ only in the premise that God does or does not exist. After that I see no difference in how they operate fundamentally.
Dan: "To simply state "I'm an atheist, that's it" with no further considerations of the effects such a claim has on your worldview as a whole is lazy and intellectually irresponsible."
I agree that finding theistic claims not credible has ramifications on one's metaphysics. The point that the OP addressed, and that I am trying to explain, is that few (if any) atheists confine their worldview to materialism based on not finding theistic claims credible. To insist that rejecting theistic claims must make one a materialist, or that one is intellectually lazy in so doing, betrays a kind of "woman scorned" vindictiveness that I usually find funny.
Tony
I think they differ only in the premise that God does or does not exist. After that I see no difference in how they operate fundamentally.
You directly contradict this statement below when you say:
agree that finding theistic claims not credible has ramifications on one's metaphysics.
Either the existence or non-existence of God has an effect on ones philosophy or it does not. Thus, theistic philosophy and atheistic philosophy do not merely differ on the proposition of whether God exists or not, as I noted and, as you admit, ones decision on that proposition has serious effects.
The point that the OP addressed, and that I am trying to explain, is that few (if any) atheists confine their worldview to materialism based on not finding theistic claims credible. To insist that rejecting theistic claims must make one a materialist, or that one is intellectually lazy in so doing, betrays a kind of "woman scorned" vindictiveness that I usually find funny.
I'm not particularly sure what you're arguing here, then. Of course being an atheist doesn't entail naturalism, however, it's quite apparent that naturalism is by far the dominant strand of atheism both in western society and, especially, on the internet. Thus, it's unsurprising that this is the form of atheism that is most often engaged by theists (in the same way that virtually every atheist you encounter on the internet argues exclusively against Christianity, without engaging Hinduism or Taoism). If you're not a naturalist, then you should feel no compunction to respond to arguments contra-naturalism, and you're perfectly free to make Buddhist atheist, or idealist atheist, or whatever flavor of atheist you are arguments against theism. Then we can judge your case on its own merits. Dr. Reppert's post was on these exact lines, namely that determining that naturalism is wrong does not entail theism, any more than determining theism is wrong entails naturalism.
Dan: “Either the existence or non-existence of God has an effect on ones philosophy or it does not.”
And I didn’t say otherwise, nor mean to imply that it did not. That is why I wrote that “I agree that finding theistic claims not credible has ramifications on one's metaphysics. The point that the OP addressed, and that I am trying to explain, is that few (if any) atheists confine their worldview to materialism based on not finding theistic claims credible.”
I suspect that we agree more than we disagree on this topic. What I understood you to mean is that atheists who do not have a certain answer to metaphysical questions (God did it) are in some way lazy, when I was trying to point out that they are using the same philosophical tools as theists to reason that the answer is currently not known and may not be knowable. I took you to mean that arriving at this conclusion was in some way lazy, when I find the atheist’s answer to certain philosophical questions (metaphysical and otherwise) to be in fact more difficult and rigorous.
VR: "Parbouj has been making the complaint that Lewis, and those like myself who make use of his philosophical ideas, conflate atheism with materialism."
Parbouj is a troll. And, again, Parbouj is a troll. And trolls will say *anything*
It is foolish to pay much attention to the things trolls say.
VR: "... the complaint that Lewis, and those like myself who make use of his philosophical ideas, conflate atheism with materialism."
Any 'atheism' which admits the reality of the physical/material world *just is* a restatement of materialism. Any 'theism' which denies God's involvement with the physical/material world *just is* a restatement of materialism.
VR: "The interesting thing about that is that when Lewis himself became persuaded by anti-materialist arguments, he didn't become a theist, he attempted to avoid traditional theism by adopting an alternative philosophy that was very prevalent in his own time, namely, Absolute Idealism."
And, as a world-view, it worked no better than Parbouj's "platonic atheism", did it? It was, in the final analysis, fully as incoherent, wasn't it? For, there are no Ideas if there is no mind to enterain those Ideas.
Ilion, why are abstract objects like numbers and universals like "redness" dependent on God?
It seems to me that one can be an atheist while fully believing in the objective existence of numbers and universals.
Dan
One thing that does seem to not vary is that theists and atheists alike live their whole life in a naturalistic environment. They are conceived, born, sustained, nurtured, grow, die and decay in the natural world. Since the dawn of time and human consciousness, bags of bones have shown this to be invariably true. The food you eat, the books you read, the school you attend, the church you visit, the fellowship you enjoy all reside in the natural world. This is true for every single individual on this earth. Not one differs from this process.
When it comes to mentation, this process too, is a function and a part of the natural world. You do it, I do it. The only difference is, is that the way we do it, is as varied as there are the number of people living, each a personal and individual experience of our lives lived.
Atheists as well as theists can be materialists. Indeed the the most widely known theists are invariably the richest and most materialist. Even Mother Theresa travelled to the US for medical treatment when she needed, and had more money invested than was ever spent within her mission. Even the pope is resplendent in finery personally tailored to fit, including red Gucci shoes. Yes, all materialists, to the core. If indeed there was a jesus and he came back, he would be chucking the pope out of the Vatican and turning the tables in the temple. No doubt about it. But it seems all this magnificence and power and pompous ceremony is glossed over as the sheeple rejoice with great pride the material splendour of it all.
There is definitely a disconnect in the catholic psyche.
Tony
What I understood you to mean is that atheists who do not have a certain answer to metaphysical questions (God did it) are in some way lazy
I very clearly was not arguing that, I have no idea how you could have taken what I wrote that way. I even explicitly restated what my point was in my reply to Papalinton (which you must have read, as you quoted it). To recap. You had said:
I find all this talk about what an atheist's worldview must contain and exclude to be tedious and wrong-headed.
Which is a refusal to examine the consequences of denying God's existence After all what is atheist philosophy other than working out a coherent worldview in the absence of God(s)? In the same way that Christian philosophy is a working out of a coherent worldview, given that God exists. You also said:
I never thought about materialism or naturalism until forced into the discussion by Christians who wondered why I didn't find their particular beliefs credible.
Which means that you'd never thought about the most dominant form of modern atheism. That's rather curious from someone who is both an atheist and, presumably, interested in philosophy (else why visit this site?). That is what I took to be an abdication of philosophy, a living of the unexamined life. It has nothing to do with atheist philosophy (much of which is quite developed, and not lazy in the least), but the fact that, by your own admission, you haven't engaged with that philosophy. Since you concede that atheist and theist philosophies are fundamentally different (note I have never mentioned method), then I think my point naturally follows. To say "I'm an atheist" but to refuse to work out the consequences, to refuse to work out "what an atheists worldview must contain" is to simply not engage in philosophy at all.
So, if you're not a naturalist, what sort of atheist are you? I regret that this will probably be my last response until after the holiday, family is arriving shortly (in fact, I only saw this response because they've been a bit delayed in arriving) and tomorrow is a strict no-internet day. Don't take my lack of immediate response to be a mark that I have no wish to continue the discussion, and Merry Christmas (even if as a non-believer you don't celebrate it, I hope you have a very pleasant day) to you and yours.
Ironic that Troy calls someone else a troll.
I know I claimed that I wouldn't reply until after the holidays, but everyone has gone to bed, and I return to internet debates.
Papalinton
I'm a bit hesitant to respond to you, as your post seems to be an utter non sequitur. What does materialism or the wealth of the Catholic Church have to do with any of the points I've raised? Your dramatic shift of argument makes me wonder if you have me confused with someone else, so I think this will be my only post on these specific issues you've raised, unless you can somehow tie it back to the question at hand (which seems to me pretty well settled).
With that said, I think that stating One thing that does seem to not vary is that theists and atheists alike live their whole life in a naturalistic environment. is to beg the question on a rather grand scale. I would contend that I most assuredly do not live in a naturalist environment, as I live in a world that includes consciousness, qualia, and free will (and that's without bringing God into the equation at all). All of which are denied by naturalism (see for instance, the Churchlands, Daniel Dennet, Jaegwon Kim, etc. naturalist philosophers who explicitly, and I think rightly, contend that these things are incompatible with naturalism), yet which I experience at every waking moment of my life. The latter portion of your post blurs the distinction between materialism as a philosophical stance and as an ethical criticism, which is quite sloppy, as they mean two totally different and unrelated things, and then lapses into some bizarre anti-Catholic point. Given that I've not mentioned Catholicism, except as an example of a theistic worldview, prior to this, I must confess that I have no idea what you're getting at.
Yet, there is nothing at all ironic about the fact that 'ironClad' prefers to not dwell on the difference between simply calling someone a "troll" and demonstrating, in his own words, that someone is a "troll".
===============
Ilíon: "Any 'atheism' which admits the reality of the physical/material world *just is* a restatement of materialism. Any 'theism' which denies God's involvement with the physical/material world *just is* a restatement of materialism. ... For, there are no Ideas if there is no mind to enterain those Ideas."
Anonymous: "Ilion, why are abstract objects like numbers and universals like "redness" dependent on God?"
Anonymous, "abstract objects like numbers and universals ... [are existentially] dependent on God" because IF they are real, THEN:
1) they *must* be dependent upon some mind;
2) they cannot be dependent upon contingent beings/minds, such as ourselves;
3) ERGO, they are dependent upon the Non-Contingent Mind ... whom all men call 'God'.
What? Do abstractions abstract themselves? Do concepts conceive themselves? Do thoughts think themselves?
Anonymous: "It seems to me that one can be an atheist while fully believing in the objective existence of numbers and universals."
So, because some 'atheists' assert things that are even more abusrd and self-refuting than the things that all 'atheists' in common assert, I'm supposed to be impressed? I'm supposed to not mock the absurdity? I'm supposed to not point out the intellectual dishonesty which becomes apparent -- which becomes the only reasonable explanation for the continued assertions -- when they continue to assert the absurdities even after the absurd nature of the assertions have been explained?
I'm so sorry, Anonymous, but life just doesn't work that way.
========
Anonymous: "It seems to me that one can be an atheist while fully believing in the objective existence of numbers and universals."
Translation --
Absurd (and likely intellectually dishonest) 'Atheist', along the lines of Parbouj: "I can think the thought, represented by the sentence, 'There exists at least one thought never thought by any mind'; THEREFORE, any thought is extistentially independent of any mind thinking it!"
Now, Absurd 'Atheist' cannot, even in principle, provide any evidence that might even begin to substantiate the counter-to-reason assertion that "There exists at least one thought never thought by any mind"; for, any such "evidence" would be a thought, and he, if no one else, would be thinking it.
Meanwhile, all sane and rational men who take even a moment to think clearly about the matter understand at once that simultaneously asserting atheism and asserting "the objective existence of numbers and universals" is exactly equivalent to assertig that "thoughts can think themselves!" That is, all sane and rational (and intellectually honest) persons understand that the conjunction of atheism and "the objective existence of numbers and universals" is a self-refuting absurdity, that the conjunction cannot be true.
This is why 'atheists' who are at least trying to keep their intellectual dishonesty under some semblence of control always end up denying "the objective existence of numbers and universals".
Wow.
"Anonymous" posed a calm, completely civil, innocuous question to Ilion, along with what was merely a "seeming," and Ilion, in an absolutely trigger-happy, shameful fashion, responded by calling him an "absurd," "intellectually dishonest," "irrational" "'atheist,'" and did so through one heck of a vituperative blizzard of a post.
You know, "Christianity" is not "nice-ianity," but at the same time it's most definitely not "asshole-ianity," which is obviously what Ilion espouses.
WOW.
'Jefferson' is a liar and a fool.
Dan
"What does materialism or the wealth of the Catholic Church have to do with any of the points I've raised? Your dramatic shift of argument makes me wonder if you have me confused with someone else ...."
Don't bung on the quizzical victim/persecution caricature, please. Whether it be the catholic church, the 'grand' spire, the ambience of the mega-churches, it is all about materialism firmly posited in a naturalistic world. And your, "I would contend that I most assuredly do not live in a naturalist environment, as I live in a world that includes consciousness, qualia, and free will (and that's without bringing God into the equation at all)," is pretty much theological nonsense that has been repeatedly debunked. We all, even naturalists like me, live with consciousness and appreciate the understanding of qualia. The concept of 'free will' of course is a purely apologetical construct to get around the gross dissonance of Adam and Eve voting with their feet to ditch the whole 'garden of eden' thing as a sham and become real people, warts and all.
There is no question you also misrepresent Dennett's position, whether wittingly or unwittingly, that, "All of which [consciousness, qualia, and free will] are denied by naturalism (see for instance, the Churchlands, Daniel Dennet, Jaegwon Kim, etc. naturalist philosophers who explicitly, and I think rightly, contend that these things are incompatible with naturalism) ...". This is not so. But what Dennett does not do is mistakingly attribute these as supernatural elements, for which there is absolutely not one scintilla of evidence. They are not denied by naturalism at all. Dennett's world-view is explicitly naturalistic; everything, including human consciousness, is to be explained in natural, not supernatural, terms. And on that I am with him 100%.
To pretend you have drifted into some form of supernatural world each time you exercise your brain by thinking or musing is a preposterous idea. Every time you hug a tree or marvel at the beauty of a sunset is not a hazy euphoric jaunt into supernatural sublimity. It remains a hazy euphoric jaunt right here at home in the natural world.
Victor I have seen that, but how often do you really grapple with that reality here? You give solace to idiots like Ilion who don't understand these distinctions. Your prerogative, your blog.
Jefferson nailed it. Ilion Ilioned it in response. He can't do anything else :)
01 blathered on, as usual, in his manic senselessness.
Me: “What I understood you to mean is that atheists who do not have a certain answer to metaphysical questions (God did it) are in some way lazy”
Dan: “I very clearly was not arguing that, I have no idea how you could have taken what I wrote that way.”
Wha?
This is you, upthread: Dan: “To simply state "I'm an atheist, that's it" with no further considerations of the effects such a claim has on your worldview as a whole is lazy and intellectually irresponsible. Just as saying "I believe in God" and ignoring the consequences of such a belief is lazy and irresponsible.”
No idea how I could have taken you to mean the above? None? Maybe that’s not what you meant, but I think that my paraphrase is a fair characterization of what you wrote. Expressing puzzlement over that fact just makes you seem uninterested or incapable of sustaining a dialogue.
Moving on…
Dan: “After all what is atheist philosophy other than working out a coherent worldview in the absence of God(s)?”
Okay, quibbles aside, I could agree with something like that.
Then you quote me,
Me: “I never thought about materialism or naturalism until forced into the discussion by Christians who wondered why I didn't find their particular beliefs credible.”
To which you respond, Dan: “Which means that you'd never thought about the most dominant form of modern atheism.”
That is true. Because I hadn’t see much reason to examine the implications. This should be understandable, because I doubt you have spent much time examining the implications of the many things you don’t believe in. (How much time do you spend thinking about what you should do because of your lack of belief that there is a fire growing in the next room? Etc.) We all do this, because there is a very different nature of the entailments that come from the two kinds of beliefs – beliefs in things that do exist, and those that don’t. Eventually, through discussions like this one, I became more familiar with philosophies and terms that express a concept that contains all that I would call reality.
cont'd.
You go on: Dan: “That's rather curious from someone who is both an atheist and, presumably, interested in philosophy (else why visit this site?). That is what I took to be an abdication of philosophy, a living of the unexamined life. It has nothing to do with atheist philosophy (much of which is quite developed, and not lazy in the least), but the fact that, by your own admission, you haven't engaged with that philosophy.”
Now you seem to have gotten ahead of yourself. I said I never thought about naturalism until forced into the discussion, not that I had never thought about naturalism. This is the state of past affairs normally represented in the past perfect, something you acknowledged above when you first wrote that I HAD never thought about it, which you subsequently changed to saying that I HAVE not.
Dan: “Since you concede that atheist and theist philosophies are fundamentally different (note I have never mentioned method), then I think my point naturally follows. To say "I'm an atheist" but to refuse to work out the consequences, to refuse to work out "what an atheists worldview must contain" is to simply not engage in philosophy at all.”
Sure. But not thinking about something and refusing to think about it are two different things. You seem to be having trouble distinguishing between the two.
Dan: “So, if you're not a naturalist, what sort of atheist are you?”
I am the kind of atheist that lacks a belief in Gods. Whatever else I am may or may not relate to that lack of belief. I find that very often it does not, probably in the same way that one who doesn’t believe there is a fire growing in the next room doesn’t determine their actions based on that lack of belief.
Dan: “… and Merry Christmas (even if as a non-believer you don't celebrate it, I hope you have a very pleasant day) to you and yours.”
And merry belated Christmas to you as well. Except for not going to church nor expressing our gratitude in religious terms, I’ve found that those of us who are not Christian all seem to celebrate Christmas the same way my Christian friends do – surrounded by family, giving gifts, listening to a lot of great songs, and repeating rituals and traditions (some religious, some secular, many pagan) and being thankful for all that we’ve been given.
"I am the kind of atheist that lacks a belief in Gods."
One of the "atheism is the lack of any belief not a belief itself" atheists. Aka, someone who is full of shit. Keep flogging that horse, bro!
This argument from the laws of logic does establish that there is a Necessary Being:
1. The laws of logic exist of metaphysical necessity.
2. Our finite human minds do not make the laws of logic up, but we appeal to them as something which are outside of us and before us.
3. The laws of logic existing of metaphysical necessity, being objective and not created by man, require a Source.
4. God provides the perfect Source for the laws of logic. The laws of logic are absolute and exist of metaphysical necessity because they come from the Mind of One Metaphysicaly Necessary Being. On the other hand, materialism fails to account for the laws of logic in any meaningful way.
The laws of logic exist of metaphysical necessity - that is, they cannot fail to exist. Or to put it another way, they exist in all possible worlds. This is true for a number of reasons. One reason is that the laws of logic seem to hold of logical necessity. They are just as true as saying 2+2=4. That is, they are necessarily true and therefore true in all possible worlds. They therefore must exist in all possible worlds (otherwise, there might be a possible world in which the law of non-contradiction is false and therefore a possible world where the statement: "For any given statement it is false that both it and it's denial are true" is false).
Because the laws of logic exist of metaphysical necessity and are therefore eternal then they were arround at the Big Bang. But this just seems a bit odd to me that they could exist all by themselves without a mind. Before anything existed, it's not like the laws of logic were sitting around going, "For any given statement it is false that both it and it's denial are true." This statement contains meaning and information. Meaning and information presupposes a mind. Without a mind the laws become meaningless. The laws of logic are necessary in that they reflect who God is and God IS a Necessary Being. The laws of logic are only necessary because they reflect who God is.
Victor, why are you avoiding mentioning...JOHN LOFTUS?
Are you afraid of him?
I mention him because he is a materialist who equates that view with atheism.
His whole argument for atheism is that he has concluded that everything is the result of "chance".
That's his word..."chance".
That said, the Big Bang may as well be called "super"natural since the laws of Physics break down at that point.
The descriptions of the Big Bang invariably deal with the tiny amount of time beginning just AFTER the "bang"...no one can say what it was.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. I didn't plagarize anybody.
EG: "Victor, why are you avoiding mentioning...JOHN LOFTUS?
Are you afraid of him?"
Isn't everyone? *snork*
I'm not sure atheists are really sure what their "atheism" really entails.
You have the atheism of Ayn Rand leading down a road of "objectivist" laissez-faire capitalism and the triumph of individual autonomy....while Karl Marx's atheistic "dialectical materialism" wants to trash the entire capitalist scheme in favor of a wholesale redistribution of wealth, leading to the triumph of the "working class" over their bourgeoisie oppressors.
You have atheists who say atheism is the categorical rejection of God, while others say it's about "withholding belief" (i.e. "non-belief").
Then you have your "relativistic" atheists who can't seem to agree with their "realist" brethren on the issue of ethics.
And, of course, the range of opinion in metaphysics and epistemology among those who reject belief in God is about as monolithic as the World Council of Churches.
I must also not fail to mention the lack of consensus concerning the alleged reasons why God isn't supposed to exist; of whether Jesus was a historical person; of whether Christ was a "good" person; of whether science constitutes a convincing argument against God; of whether the New Testament is historically reliable; etc.,.
The real problem is in determining what atheism, generally speaking, is supposed to really imply.
Post a Comment